http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1106-05.htm
Published on Thursday,
November 6, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
Going Backwards
Rule Drafted That Would Dilute the Clean Water
Act
by Elizabeth Shogren
QUOTE #1:
"It's like writing off the entire Southwest from the
Clean Water Act, where water is more precious than in
any other region of the country. Up to 80% to 90% of
streams in the Southwest would not fall under the Clean
Water Act if this rule were to go forward."
Julie Sibbing, wetlands policy expert at the National Wildlife
Federation
QUOTE #2:
"This is a worst-case scenario. It represents a radical change
of direction from 30 years of Clean Water Act implementation
and judicial interpretation."
Dr. Alan Wentz, Ducks Unlimited
WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials have drafted a
rule that would significantly narrow the scope of the Clean
Water Act, stripping many wetlands and streams of federal
pollution controls and making them available to being filled
for commercial development.
The rule, spelled out
in an internal document provided to
The Times by a senior government official, says that Clean
Water Act protection would no longer be provided to "ephemeral
washes or streams" that do not have groundwater as a source.
Streams that flow for less than six months a year would also
lose protection, as would many wetlands, according to the document.
State and federal officials have estimated that up to 20 million
acres of wetlands, 20% of the wetlands outside of Alaska, could
lose protection under a new rule like the one in the draft.
The effect would be greater in California and other parts of
the arid West, where many streams flow only seasonally or after
rain or snowmelts.
Administration officials
cautioned that no rule change could happen
without a public process, which would take many months and offer
the public a chance to comment. However, the draft was the first
indication of the direction that at least some administration
officials want to take in rewriting the rule.
The new rule-making
exercise was triggered by a 2001 Supreme
Court ruling that limited federal jurisdiction over isolated,
non-navigable, intrastate waters and wetlands. But the draft
rule circulating within the administration would leave a much
broader range of waters and wetlands outside the strictures of
the Clean Water Act.
Government officials
declined to comment on the draft rule
until it becomes a public proposal.
If implemented, the
change would represent one of the most
consequential of the actions the Bush administration has taken
to ease environmental regulations.
"It would dramatically
cut back the scope of Clean Water Act
jurisdiction," said the official who provided the document
on
the condition that neither he nor his agency be identified.
"It would eliminate protections for ephemeral streams, which
could be in the millions of miles of streams, particularly out
West where many streams do not flow all year long."
Julie Sibbing, a wetlands
policy expert at the National Wildlife
Federation, said, "It's like writing off the entire Southwest
from the Clean Water Act, where water is more precious than in
any other region of the country. Up to 80% to 90% of streams in
the Southwest would not fall under the Clean Water Act if this
rule were to go forward."
Examples of areas in
California that could lose protection,
according to a state official who asked not to be named, are
the Tujunga Wash in the northeast San Fernando Valley and
San Francisco wetlands that are diked and cut off from the
bay. The same fate might await headwater streams of the Klamath,
Eel and Salmon rivers on the north coast, important spawning
grounds for salmon, including the endangered Coho.
In January, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the
Army Corps of Engineers announced that they were considering
rewriting the regulations that establish what wetlands and
streams are included in definitions of waters of the United
States, and thereby protected by a variety of Clean Water Act
regulations. The EPA is responsible for enforcing the Clean
Water Act; the corps issues permits for filling waters and
streams.
In comments on the
agencies' plan, states almost unanimously
urged the federal government to retain a broad definition of
waters of the United States.
"As with many
other states, California will not be able to
comprehensively replicate the corps' regulatory role in the
foreseeable future because of its current budget crisis,"
the California EPA said in its comments on a rule change.
"The entirely foreseeable result would be dramatic impacts
to the potentially affected waters."
State water quality
officials and conservationists said the
wetlands and streams that would lose protection under a rule
change are essential to maintaining the health of the larger
rivers and lakes that would still be protected by the law.
Wetlands filter pollutants and retain water after rainfalls
to lessen flooding. Ephemeral streams reduce flooding. Both
provide healthy habitats for fish, birds and other wildlife.
The government received more than 130,000 comments about its
proposal to rewrite the rules, and EPA and White House officials
said the government had not yet decided whether to follow
through with a new rule.
The draft revision
of the rule defining waters of the
United States was prepared by officials at the Army Corps
of Engineers and Justice Department, according to the official
who provided the document. Copies of the document were
circulated to officials at other agencies in recent weeks,
the official said. Corps spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said there
would be no comment on a leaked draft. Justice Department
officials also refused to comment.
James Connaughton,
chairman of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, which coordinates multi-agency policymaking,
said he had not seen the draft. He stressed that the EPA would
have the lead part in rewriting the rule, although the corps
would also have a significant role.
Conservation, hunting
and fishing organizations that saw the
draft criticized it as a major rollback.
"This is a worst-case
scenario," said Dr. Alan Wentz,
Ducks Unlimited's senior group manager for conservation.
"It represents a radical change of direction from 30 years
of Clean Water Act implementation and judicial interpretation,
and if this becomes the corps' interpretation of the law,
it will create irreparable harm to those wetlands of greatest
value to waterfowl, such as the prairie potholes of the
northern Great Plains."
Copyright 2003 Los
Angeles Times
###
